I'm not bothered by sexy game characters; games are entertainment, and attractive women are certainly entertaining. But what seems embarrassing and unprofessional is hiring lots of models to bounce around your trade conferences. You're there to work, the only people allowed are industry and press. And while you're at work you need to work with women who you should do your best not to creep out or demean.

I guess it could be argued that the booth babes are a form of advertizement, and there for the customers, not the attendees. But that doesn't really seem to be the case.

Sony deserves all the praise they're getting, but unfortunately they did copy Microsoft's policy in one area. On the PS4 you'll have to pay $50 a year to play any games online, even though most console games are peer-to-peer.

I hope Microsoft is paying attention. EA must have had good reason to abandon their scheme to fine customers for reselling games. They didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, they did it because at some point screwing your customers becomes bad for business.

SpectralMeat wrote on May 21, 2013, 17:09:I find the Blu-Ray player in the xbox pretty amusing

They're trying to slide that one under the radar.

Along with the online requirements and Kinect datamining, looks like that patent was the real deal.

The details are still fuzzy, but according to the Wired article there will be offline games. Though it seems there must at least an online activation for each game.

Are developers forced to create games that have these online features, and are thus not playable offline? They are not, Xbox exec Whitten said to Wired — but “I hope they do.” So the always-online future may come in incremental steps.

I hope they run into a big class action due to the proposed game licensing scam. My understanding was that computer software has a special exemption from the First-sale doctrine, but that game consoles have no such exemption and so must legally allow resale of software and hardware.

Unless they plan to integrate some sort of meaningless "online service" into every game that is only there for the purpose of DRM. Even then I hope there's room to challenge it.

My one real complaint about DoW 2 was how they approached single player. The gameplay of multiplayer was much more fun and varied, I probably spent most of my time with the game in skirmishes against the AI to try to enjoy that part of the game, while avoid the uber leet community that dominates every online RTS game.

The most fun I've ever had with RTS games were the single player campaigns of DoW 1, Winter Assault, CoH, and Opposing Fronts. And they all had a similar formula, missions were scripted and story driven, but basically used the same units and rules at the multiplayer component. I hope they return to that.

Yeah, that sale price on Homeworld is a surprising amount for a series which the previous owners didn't see as profitable enough to use for the last decade. But it's good to know that it ended up in the hands of the people who mad Duke Nukem Forever.

Still, I guess there's some dim hope that they could make a faithful sequel. The price seems to be a good sign that they'll actually use the IP.

Redmask wrote on Apr 16, 2013, 22:30:I can't imagine what an online only console would bring to the table for the customer. I can see how it would benefit the corporation behind the product but how exactly does any of that benefit the customer? Are they going to get a reduced price in exchange for what they're giving up in terms of convenience, resale and other traditional features? I haven't seen a single coherent response from the industry that wasn't a bunch of PR terms and vagueness patched together.

What does an online only console do for me as a customer?

Well, nothing, the only way it can possibly work is if there is no competition that isn't stooping to the same level. I will literally buy a Wii U before I consider buying an always online Xbox or Playstation.

Besides, there is no need to make the console online only when every publisher already has the choice to include spiteful always-online DRM a la Diablo 3. And the rumor is made even more ridiculous by the fact that console hardware has virtually beaten piracy if the 3DS, Wii U or PS Vita are anything to go by.

It sounds like Activision definitely acquired the rights in the merger, and the only thing that's uncertain is if they've sold it and to who. I'm sure they'd have a record of selling off an IP, so the story is basically that a guy at Activision can't be bothered to really look.

I'd be willing to bet the writer is complaining that the game isn't challenging, while playing the entire thing on normal mode. Normal is the new easy. With any modern game, if you don't want a cakewalk, you need to start out on hard and see where it goes from there. (you can also edit an ini file to unlock insane right away)

On hard, I died plenty of times, had to use cover and retreat occasionally, ran out of ammo frequently, and needed to select appropriate vigors for the situation.

It definitely could have done with more battles in large open areas. But the ones that were there were great fun while they lasted.